Lackey v. Thomas

184 So. 264, 236 Ala. 602, 1938 Ala. LEXIS 417
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedOctober 27, 1938
Docket8 Div. 941.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 184 So. 264 (Lackey v. Thomas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lackey v. Thomas, 184 So. 264, 236 Ala. 602, 1938 Ala. LEXIS 417 (Ala. 1938).

Opinion

BROWN, Justice.

The opinion of the Court of Appeals ■states that:

“The value of the machinery at the time it was in the possession of Watford and Moorer was immaterial, and therefore the trial court committed error.”

This statement relates to testimony going to show the value at the time the machinery was repossessed by the plaintiff Lackey under the mortgage note given by Watford and Moorer payable to the plaintiff, evidencing their indebtedness to him.

In view of the conflict in the evidence, as to whether the mortgage note was taken and accepted by Lackey in payment and discharge of defendant’s note, now in suit, testimony as to the value of the property at the time of the execution of the note might shed light on the conflicting issue of fact, but testimony at the later date, after default by Watford and Moorer, shed no light on the question at issue. George D. Witt Shoe Co. v. Mills, 224 Ala. 500, 140 So. 578; Smith v. State, 13 Ala.App. 411, 69 So. 406.

The writ of certiorari was properly denied.

Rehearing overruled.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and KNIGHT, JJ., concur. •

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cherry v. Hill
214 So. 2d 427 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
184 So. 264, 236 Ala. 602, 1938 Ala. LEXIS 417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lackey-v-thomas-ala-1938.